Though I wasn't a fan of Rick Santorum, I didn't expect him to say this. He wants big government and slams the idea of smaller government, lower taxes, even says he wants government in the bedroom. So bizarre and even stupid for him to say.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gwwmm-cQxU[/youtube]

For those of you who don't watch this video, I'll quote him: "One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in the cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world."

And this guy is supposed to be a conservative?! No way, Rick, you'd better keep your sorry butt out of my bedroom. And then there's what he said about the Tea Party (until they became popular)

I thought Federalist no. 10 slammed the insufficiency of small government 200 years ago give or take? Madison and several Framers were opposed to small government weren't they? Something about the states having too much power which lead to chaos in every aspect of our infrastructure.

LOL. And I've seen both of you slam big government Obama and talk about how taxes are too high, too many regulations, etc. But now Santorum wants big government and you're on board? Talk about sheep. Just save yourself the trouble and let Obama get elected again if that's what you want.

I guess Reagan was a libertarian then too what with his lower taxes, less regulations, more freedom...all that "libertarian" stuff. And here I was thinking that was conservative. But go ahead, toe the "new" party line.

LOL. And I've seen both of you slam big government Obama and talk about how taxes are too high, too many regulations, etc. But now Santorum wants big government and you're on board? Talk about sheep. Just save yourself the trouble and let Obama get elected again if that's what you want.

I guess Reagan was a libertarian then too what with his lower taxes, less regulations, more freedom...all that "libertarian" stuff. And here I was thinking that was conservative. But go ahead, toe the "new" party line.

There is now a lot of confusion over what is a "conservative" now. The main source of confusion stems with the infusion of neocon ideology into the Republican party. http://conservapedia.com/Neocon"A neoconservative (also spelled "neo-conservative"; colloquially, neocon) in American politics is someone presented as a conservative but who actually favors big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. The word means "newly conservative," and thus formerly liberal. Many neocons had been liberals in their youth and admired President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 2010 the highest priority of the neoconservatives was to increase military action by the United States in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and to expand it to an American confrontation against Iran; in 2011 their goals include supporting a military attack on Libya, continuing the Afghanistan War indefinitely, and even suggesting military action against Syria.

Neoconservatives tend to oppose the appointment of social conservatives to high governmental positions, such as nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Neoconservatives support candidates who are liberal on social issues instead.

Neoconservatives favor expensive foreign interventionalism with massive federal spending, often to replace a dictator with a new system of government that may be worse. Sometimes this is expressed as a desire to install a democracy in a culture that may be incompatible with it. The neoconservative position was discredited in the failure of democracy in the Iranian elections of 2009.

The neoconservative movement emerged in the mid 1970s, played a limited role in the Ronald Reagan Administration, and then had a voice in the Defense Department under the George W. Bush Administration after 9/11. Candidates favored by neoconservatives for president in 2012 include Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Mike Pence and, to a lesser extent because she pulls support away from those candidates, Sarah Palin.

In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives favor globalism, downplay religious issues and differences, are unlikely to actively oppose abortion and homosexuality. Neocons disagree with conservatives on issues such as classroom prayer, the separation of powers, cultural unity, and immigration. Neocons favor a strong active state in world affairs. Neocons oppose affirmative action with greater emphasis and priority than other conservatives do.

On foreign policy, neoconservatives believe that democracy can and should be installed by the United States around the world, even in Muslim countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Neoconservatives were prominent in the George W. Bush administration by supporting a strong foreign policy, and especially favored the Iraq War and its efforts to spread democracy worldwide."

That was a slam on the LP not smaller government. The LP platform is anarchy and he was right that is not traditional conservative values. We are for smaller government and lower taxes not the anything goes LP brand.This was as bad as the dems taking someones words out of context. Opposition to the LP is not opposition to conservative values.

That was a slam on the LP not smaller government. The LP platform is anarchy and he was right that is not traditional conservative values. We are for smaller government and lower taxes not the anything goes LP brand.This was as bad as the dems taking someones words out of context. Opposition to the LP is not opposition to conservative values.

And yet Santorum mocked people who want low taxes and less regulations SPECIFICALLY. He said it. Those were the actual things he chose to take issue with. This is absolutely not taking him out of context! I'm quoting him. Are you in denial or something? Don't play games. The man said what he said.

LOL. And I've seen both of you slam big government Obama and talk about how taxes are too high, too many regulations, etc. But now Santorum wants big government and you're on board? Talk about sheep. Just save yourself the trouble and let Obama get elected again if that's what you want.

I guess Reagan was a libertarian then too what with his lower taxes, less regulations, more freedom...all that "libertarian" stuff. And here I was thinking that was conservative. But go ahead, toe the "new" party line.

Was that inclusive to me?

I don't think it should have been. I want making a claim. I was asking a serious question. I don't know enough about politics to have a big boy discussion about it but I have been doing a little reading of the Framers.

I thought a lot of them were opposed to smaller government due to the chaos it created during the sovereignty of the Articles of Confederation? The way I read it. The states had pretty much all the power with the national government being basically insignificant. This lead to major failures in economy and other areas.

I can understand the desire for less taxes If this is the case why are you all trying to resurrect smaller national government? History proves that leads to chaos.

Or is it when you say "smaller government" you mean government in general state and federal?

No, the Framers were adament about states rights and all governments being small enough the people ruled them rather than the other way around. The point of this thread is that people who call themselves conservative here and nationally have said they wanted smaller government, less taxes and less government regulation (and made that a major complaint against Obama). But now that Santorum says he wants those things some of them seem perfectly okay with it. As though they'll take Obama with an "R" beside his name. It's pretty stunning actually.

No, the Framers were adament about states rights and all governments being small enough the people ruled them rather than the other way around. The point of this thread is that people who call themselves conservative here and nationally have said they wanted smaller government, less taxes and less government regulation (and made that a major complaint against Obama). But now that Santorum says he wants those things some of them seem perfectly okay with it. As though they'll take Obama with an "R" beside his name. It's pretty stunning actually.

I don't have a dog in this fight Big Brother and I don't want my inquiry to derail your thread.

That was a slam on the LP not smaller government. The LP platform is anarchy and he was right that is not traditional conservative values. We are for smaller government and lower taxes not the anything goes LP brand.This was as bad as the dems taking someones words out of context. Opposition to the LP is not opposition to conservative values.

Small L libertarian & alot of the stuff in the current Libertarian part platform are at odds. So you are correct in saying "Opposition to the LP is not opposition to conservative values".

What's happened to the Libertarian in the classical liberal sense is the same thing that has happened to Conservative in the classical liberal sense.

Just as the Republican party has been infiltrated by the neocons who have corrupted the message of true conservatism (classical liberal) the Libertarian party has been infiltrated by the atheist ideals of the Objectionist who have corrupted the message of true libertarian (classical liberal).

Just as social liberal is an oxymoron because you can not have liberty with social statist authoritarian control, also neo(new) conservative is an oxymoron because it can not be new if it is holding on the the traditions of the founders. Neocon ideology leads to authoritarian statist control & is not in the traditions of the Founders. Objectionist libertarian is an oxymoron because it rejects God as the author of Liberty & declares self the determiner of existence & leads to authoritarian statist control . All 3 ideologies have one thing in common, they think man knows better than God & do not submit to God's natural law & it becomes exposed in their policies - "they shall be known by their fruit"

All true conservatives, libertarians, classical liberals recognize one truth first - God, & attempt to follow God's natural law. We see this this concept enshrined in our Declaration of Independence by the recognition of the Creator & in our Constitution by the recognition of the Blessor. Since the essays of John Locke were so influential on the founding generation I'd suggest reading this.

From this I see where Tennman is coming from in regards to the sanctity of the marriage bed. The state has no authority over the sanctity of the marriage bed and thus must stay the heck out of it. It's part of our God-given right to privacy because the intimacy between & husband & wife is a Blessing from God. It is a sacred trust, completely private & must be protected. Why Santorum goes way off the reservation on this issue. While we as a society(the People) has the right to define our morals on a local & state level the Federal does not have the right to define for us. The limits of the Federal are clearly defined in the enumerated powers & reconfirmed & enshrined in our Bill of Rights. One being our right to privacy the other being the powers reserved to the People & the States. No one has the right to violate the sanctity of the marriage bed save God Himself.

Jesus would have been a libertarian if He was around today. Wasn't it God Himself who gave us freedom of choice? Just like charity should be a personal choice and has been distorted by socialists to make it seem that charity should be administered by the government, individual liberty is bening subverted by so called conservatives who say that our choices should also be administered by the government. They say that marijuana is evil and should be kept illegal ye thty eignore that it was their God who actually made marijuana and all the other plants in the Garden of Eden. There was only one plant that we were not allowed to touch or eat of it's fruit and I don't think it was marijuana. So to advocate one or more plants that God made and said in Genesis "it is good and for your use" is to say that God made a mistake. That He wasn't wise because He didn't know what we would do might be evil. Yet we also ignore Jesus too when He said "it's not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out". We also ignore Paul when he said "happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he does".

Okay, Olddad, you can bash libertarians if you like, but if you're a conservative as you claim to be, how could you possibly vote for Santorum with such an extreme record of supporting unions (who I know you don't like)? And here's a list that's not even complete:

Voting to RAISE the debt ceiling five times;

Voting with Ted Kennedy on multiple occasions to support the Big Labor Unions agenda;

Supporting raising taxes on oil companies, which directly costs Americans more money out of their pockets at the gas pump;

Urging more federal involvement in housing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;

Voting to create a brand new, unfunded entitlement, Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of entitlement spending since President Lyndon Johnson - creating $16 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities;

Endorsing liberal Big Government RINOs like Arlen Specter over conservatives. Of course, Specter became a Democrat and worked hand-in-glove with President Obama to pass his radical agenda;

Voting for Sarbanes-Oxley, which imposed dramatic new job-killing accounting regulations on businesses;

Voting for gun control;

Voting to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens, while voting against an additional 1,000 border patrol agents;

Voting to send hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood - the nation's largest provider of abortion – and to hand out hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid to enemies of Israel.

He OPPOSED the right to work act and instead voted to give unions more control and hurt non-unionized workers

Rick Santorum is NOT a conservative. With the exception of talking like a social conservative, he's a bigger liberal than Romney. He might as well be Barack Santorum!

Jesus would have been a libertarian if He was around today. Wasn't it God Himself who gave us freedom of choice? Just like charity should be a personal choice and has been distorted by socialists to make it seem that charity should be administered by the government, individual liberty is bening subverted by so called conservatives who say that our choices should also be administered by the government. They say that marijuana is evil and should be kept illegal ye thty eignore that it was their God who actually made marijuana and all the other plants in the Garden of Eden. There was only one plant that we were not allowed to touch or eat of it's fruit and I don't think it was marijuana. So to advocate one or more plants that God made and said in Genesis "it is good and for your use" is to say that God made a mistake. That He wasn't wise because He didn't know what we would do might be evil. Yet we also ignore Jesus too when He said "it's not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out". We also ignore Paul when he said "happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he does".

I wonder what some people think "libertarian" really means?

I was answering this post and some things Tman said. Yes some are talking about the LP on this thread so you get off your high horse.

PS Many of Ron Paul supporters are LP and he has many of the same views. And yes I know he is pro life.

Does Santorum (or any one else for that matter) have a plan to pay off the national debt ($16 trillion) in the next 20 or 30 years?

If not how can they be called "conservative?"

DaveW,

Ron Paul is the only one who has proposed major cuts. $1 Trillion in the first year alone. No one else has proposed even 1/10 of that. He's the only one who seems to understand what kind of terrible debt we're in and that the Obama administration isn't doing anything to stop it and that the other candidates aren't either. Paul has also never voted for an unbalanced budget or for an increase in the debt ceiling. Here's his plan on the economy and the national debt: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/economy/

JohnB,

This thread is about Rick Santorum not being a conservative. If wanting to keep taxes low, wanting low regulation and wanting the government out of my bedroom is libertarian, you can use that word to describe me, but most people call it conservative. Those are the SPECIFIC issues that rick Santorum brought up to speak AGAINST. Those are issues that conservatives have claimed as their issues for as long as I can remember. Rick Santorum is not a conservative and that's the point of this thread. Ron Paul supports some of the things that libertarians supports but he's prolife, so I don't know why you even brought that issue up. It really just seems like you're trying to distract from some really bad comments Santorum has made that show he's a lot more like our current President than a conservative.

RP does have some good points and that is one of them. Problem he is not going to get the nomination and will not be president. My hope is that he has enough support to be a power broker at the convention and get some of his better ides in the GOP platform.

Okay, Olddad, you can bash libertarians if you like, but if you're a conservative as you claim to be, how could you possibly vote for Santorum with such an extreme record of supporting unions (who I know you don't like)? And here's a list that's not even complete:

Voting to RAISE the debt ceiling five times;

Voting with Ted Kennedy on multiple occasions to support the Big Labor Unions agenda;

Supporting raising taxes on oil companies, which directly costs Americans more money out of their pockets at the gas pump;

Urging more federal involvement in housing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;

Voting to create a brand new, unfunded entitlement, Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of entitlement spending since President Lyndon Johnson - creating $16 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities;

Endorsing liberal Big Government RINOs like Arlen Specter over conservatives. Of course, Specter became a Democrat and worked hand-in-glove with President Obama to pass his radical agenda;

Voting for Sarbanes-Oxley, which imposed dramatic new job-killing accounting regulations on businesses;

Voting for gun control;

Voting to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens, while voting against an additional 1,000 border patrol agents;

Voting to send hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood - the nation's largest provider of abortion – and to hand out hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid to enemies of Israel.

He OPPOSED the right to work act and instead voted to give unions more control and hurt non-unionized workers

Rick Santorum is NOT a conservative. With the exception of talking like a social conservative, he's a bigger liberal than Romney. He might as well be Barack Santorum!

When did I say I'm supporting Santorum?

But maybe you're right - I should become a Paulinista Libertarian and support the people's right to smoke weed.

Ron Paul is the only one who has proposed major cuts. $1 Trillion in the first year alone.

Hows he going to do that? He will have no support in Congress from either party. He's never been anything but an anti-gadfly, and has never shown the ability to build a legislative coalition or persuade other MOC's to his points of view.

Even if Paul was elected, he cannot unilaterally deliver on any of his big political promises.

Ron Paul is the only one who has proposed major cuts. $1 Trillion in the first year alone.

Hows he going to do that? He will have no support in Congress from either party. He's never been anything but an anti-gadfly, and has never shown the ability to build a legislative coalition or persuade other MOC's to his points of view.

Even if Paul was elected, he cannot unilaterally deliver on any of his big political promises.

Oh sure, let's just elect another sorry politician because the guy who will actually do the right things will be surrounded by too many thieves who won't agree with him. Really? Or, the American people could see that President Paul was trying to save the country and its currency from massive debt and the politicians weren't playing ball. That's when the power of voting comes in and we vote the bums out.

Besides, at least we'd know with a President Paul that new wasteful spending WOULD NOT happen. And there at least would be more cuts than with the others.

Using your logic, hey, the Bulls should never have signed Michael Jordan because he was way too good for the other guys on his team and they couldn't play on his level.

When someone is elected President the party comes to play ball in a hurry especially if they see that their constituents demand it. You don't vote for more of the same just because it will be easier for them to get more of the same. Look where that's gotten us.

Paul is not going to be president. The choice will be Obama or one of the other 3 GOP candidates. I will take any of them over Obama. But I guess it makes some folks feel superior to take their marbles and go home because their favorite did not win. That is childish and dumb. There are several folks I would rather see running but they are not. Ron Paul has shown zero chance of willing. He has not proven any ability to get enough support to win a single state. Yet folks keep acting like he is the second coming of Christ. There is plenty of mud to sling in Ron Paul's direction I just don't see the sense of smearing every GOP candidate. I will vote for the GOP nominee because that will be the only person that has a chance of beating Obama. Neither Ron Paul nor his supporters will make that commitment. This thread is actually about trying to pump up Ron Paul by slamming the latest winning GOP candidate. If you had not tied you hopes to a losing candidate you would not need these tactics. That is the same thing that has really turned me off of Romney.

John, you are right. "Unnamed Republican" polls better against Obama than Paul does.

I have not selected a candidate - and honestly do not know who I will support in our state's primary.

I do know I will not support Paul.

Of course, according to the Paulinistas on here, I've made that decision because I am clueless about history, don't understand the Constitution, am a mindless sheep letting the media lead me by the nose, and am generally stupid.

I'm sure this will prompt even more condescension, patronizing book-length posts, and proganda videos from the Paulinista regime - as it always seems to do.

It's true what Pat Kerby said, "The way the Republican party treats Ron Paul is like a sinking ship shooting torpedoes at the rescue boat."

I can't help that Santorum said those things. He did. It has nothing to do with Ron Paul. He didn't make Santorum say those things and they weren't invented. Santorum said those things. Words and the truth should matter. Especially when you gain nothing by getting someone in with an "R" beside his name who is simply going to act like Obama.

Please watch your tone. I'm not being rude to you but you seem to depend more on rudeness than discussing with facts. The other two candidates, Mitt and Newt are just as bad if not worse than Santorum. Mitt and Newt both supported Government healthcare until they started running for President and Newt supported cap and trade (remember his commercial with his buddy Pelosi?). They are both RINOs like Santorum. Just more of the same.

Got to get the GOP nomination to have a run against Obama and that is not going to happen. I could drag out every dumb thing Paul has said and the letters that have gone out in his name but I don't choose to play that game and drag down every person that has a chance of beating Obama. Paul won't get the GOP and can not win as a third party.

Got to get the GOP nomination to have a run against Obama and that is not going to happen. I could drag out every dumb thing Paul has said and the letters that have gone out in his name but I don't choose to play that game and drag down every person that has a chance of beating Obama. Paul won't get the GOP and can not win as a third party.

Ah, so it's a matter of picking who you "think" could win and not a matter of what their principles are? So why not just back Obama since he's a proven winner...if that's the only thing that matters. Because I remember when Newt was "unelectable" according to the experts and I think he still is.

And actually, according to Rueters, Paul just moved into second in the GOP nomination with a falling Newt (Source). So I guess the "won't-be-the-nominee" argument holds true more to Newt and Santorum than Paul. And along with that continued steady rise in the polls, it looks like Paul will get his first win this weekend.

Olddad is just expressing the frustration of dealing with the unrealistic almost worship support of RP followers. The constant assertion that he is the only one who can save the country is frustrating and in the end damaging to the conservative movement. There are no perfect candidates just like there are no perfect men. I am sure that if my guy had run Paul supporters would have equated him with the mark of the beast. If these folks would make the commitment that Paul will not to support the GOP nominee it might make for a better discussion. I have said moire than once if by some great change of fortunes RP was the nominee I would vote for him. I am not crazy about any of those left but they all are better than Obama.

Got to get the GOP nomination to have a run against Obama and that is not going to happen. I could drag out every dumb thing Paul has said and the letters that have gone out in his name but I don't choose to play that game and drag down every person that has a chance of beating Obama. Paul won't get the GOP and can not win as a third party.

Ah, so it's a matter of picking who you "think" could win and not a matter of what their principles are? So why not just back Obama since he's a proven winner...if that's the only thing that matters. Because I remember when Newt was "unelectable" according to the experts and I think he still is.

And actually, according to Rueters, Paul just moved into second in the GOP nomination with a falling Newt (Source). So I guess the "won't-be-the-nominee" argument holds true more to Newt and Santorum than Paul. And along with that continued steady rise in the polls, it looks like Paul will get his first win this weekend.

No I just posted that I would support RP if he were the nominee. Something neither Paul or his supporters are willing to do. I support the person in the race who's vision is closest to mine and that is not RP. But in the end I will support the nominee. As i have stated before he has some ideas I agree with but some very big ones I do not. It is not just about supporting who I think can win. I am just realistic and know Paul can not.

I hear you saying they are better than Obama and I used to think they were too, but please show me where their record is better than Obama. It's not. The only candidate who has a better record than Obama is Paul. He's never voted for an unbalanced budget. He's never voted for union special treatment, for a law restricting gun ownership, for giving citizenship to illegal aliens, never supported cap and trade, etc.

I was out of town last weekend and it was raining. My dad and I were driving and he said, "Look over there." And in the pouring rain was a man in the median holding a Ron Paul sign. No umbrella or rain coat. My mother, who isn't in to politics, heard the story and said, "They must really believe in him to stand in the rain like that." And then I asked, "Can you see anyone standing in the rain holding a sign up for any of the other candidates?"

You have both attacked me and been rude regardless of what you say. I have only presented facts and when I've given my opinion I haven't been rude. But why not ask yourself what it is about Ron Paul that brings such loyalty and passion from his supporters. Is it that he's a great speaker. Not really. Is it that he's a slick politician who tells people what they want to hear. Clearly not or else he would do as the others and soften or backtrack on one of his positions or votes he's made in the past. It's his consistent integrity and the fact that he hasn't been corrupted by politics. He doesn't take government junkets or money from lobbyists. He stands his ground.

And he is in stark contrast to the other GOP candidates who seem to only want to make little cuts around the edges rather than desperately needed cuts. Another amazing thing about him is that he predicted the burst of the housing bubble in front of Congress and no one listened. They laughed. But he was right. Oh sure, it was crazy then but now, not so much.

So maybe it would be a positive thing to consider why people who start studying Ron Paul and reading what he's done, what he wants to do and who he is become so committed to electing him. Can you see anyone standing in the cold, pouring rain for one of the other candidates? Does anyone think they're candidacy is worth that?